Subject: Re: [boost] [new Warnings policy] MS C4180 on the Maintenance Guidelines
From: Patrick Horgan (phorgan1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-23 18:49:35
Zachary Turner wrote:
> ... elision by Patrick ...
> What follows after the snipped part I find to be a rather strange argument.
> I mean I get that there's added complexity and that added complexity is
> "bad", but the proposed "solution" requires that the programmer be ok with
> the memory being allocated by the CRT, which is grossly limiting and kind of
> against everything that C / C++ is about.
I saw them throw that idea out but didn't read it as a proposal, nor an
argument, did you really? It read to me as if they were saying, here's
something that says it fixes a problem, but it doesn't really, if you
changed it like this it would, but that was just to illustrate why the
original wouldn't work, not to propose the other. I'm quite sure that
the POSIX position was to leave things unchanged. Interesting. I'll
have to go back and re-read it. It hadn't occurred to me to read it
that way at all.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk